User talk:CJLL Wright/Archive XV



=JUL '07 — AUG '07=

3ware 9500s
Hi, this page was deleted - why? I understand that it was proposed to be deleted, but *why*?

The page itself contained a wealth of USEFUL information concerning this particular RAID card, yet because it was a little untidy - it was simply deleted? No chance for a tidy-up? What's going on with the encyclopaedia anyone can edit?

So long as Wikipedia admins decide to just delete what they don't find useful themselves, or maybe don't understand the value of, then Wikipedia will slowly slip from the face of the earth.

Very disappointed, very disappointed indeed.

87.194.16.76 08:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Tom

Hi Tom. The page was deleted (by me) per our deletion policies, in particular via the WP:PROD process which allows for articles to be deleted if after being tagged for proposed deletion they remain uncontested after five days have elapsed. After reviewing the article I concurred with the deletion nominator that the article as it stood was suitable for deletion under a number of established criteria. Among these is our No Original Research policy, since the article consisted in the main of 1st-person descriptions of benchmarking tests, review comments etc undertaken by the article's writer. This is not how wikipedia encyclopaedia articles should be constructed (ie based on personal experience & interpretation rather than verifiable and citeable third-party sources). While wikipedia is supposed to be the "encyclopaedia anyone can edit", it is not the "encyclopaedia where anyone can write whatever they want to, whether it's encyclopaedic or not".

In this case, the content was also far removed from the purpose of wikipedia's entries- pls see in particular What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a repository of product reviews, test results, or a substitute for a personal webspace and discussion forum. As the article was largely composed of sentences like "The Battery Backup Unit, (BBU), is a bit difficult to get on. I had to actually remove the metal clip on the side that you screw down to get it on. Then I read the manual and discovered my extreme approach is exactly the right way to do it." and "I wrote this wiki because the performance of the card was far far below what I expected...", coupled with invitations such as "Please contribute your results to this wiki page so that others can gain from your experiences." Hopefully you can see that material such as that, even if useful in some way, is not within wikipedia's scope and is really better suited to some other tech review forum or webspace. If there is to be an article on that particular RAID card, it needs to be a factual description based on external published 3rd-party reliable/notable sources, per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE (as well as meeting other criteria, so I'm not saying whether or not an article on this particular product will be deemed eligible for inclusion here). Hope this explains, regards --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your comments, and I realise why the article wasn't quite appropriate - but the fact remains that no chance was given for the article to be re-written or re-structured.

Once more, if it's ever re-created - surely it will be deleted too?

Is there any archive available from which the information can be retrieved? Even if it is not to be assimilated into wiki-form, I'd very much like to have the reference material for my own future use. I'm sure the original author(s) wouldn't mind their hard-work being put to use, or mirrored elsewhere on the web, given that the appropriate credit is given..

87.194.16.76 07:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Tom


 * If you want to look at it, I've copied the deleted text to a temporary space here. Otherwise, you could try to contact the original creator User:Daveseobmcom, although he seems to have not taken kindly to being (reasonably) informed his contributions do not fit in with wikipedia's stated purposes, and is likely no longer around.--cjllw ʘ TALK 23:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mayan Long Count
My mind is boggled, you claim to remove the link I posted because the paged linked to also has a link to a timewave calculator and this bothers you and you consider it misleading - yet you leave a link to John Major Jenkins "end date" which does not exist as well as the link to diagnosis2012 both of which are sites designed to sell books proclaiming 2012 is the end of the world. I am not arguing with your reasoning in removing the link I posted rather I am claiming that you are not being consistent in your judgement here. My position is that at least half of the people who visit the mayan calendar page are looking for information relating to the supposed end date which is a fabrication yet you are not allowing links which attempt to show that this end date is false.

I would like to see such a calculator available on the page, if I copied the javascript used for the calculator and put it on a page unrelated to the timewave stuff would that be acceptable to you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aronprice (talk • contribs).


 * Well, at least two others beside myself have not been able to see the value of having that link to your website. Given that your only activity around here so far has been to add links to your website, it's valid to question whether your actions are intended to benefit that external website, instead of wikipedia. The Long Count calendar article already makes the point that it doesn't "end" per se but can be extended in either direction, and I don't see that your calendar converter says this any better.


 * Re the couple of others you mention, the JMJ link is not a calendar converter but rather his well-known (but not accepted) interpretation of 'galactic centre alignment', which for the moment anyways is better off as a link than being covered in any detail in the text. JMJ incidentally does not maintain it's the end of the world, or even the end of the calendar. The diagnosis2012 page is a collection of many of the dozens & dozens of calendar converters, which actually can be input beyond 2012 although they mostly don't display the higher-order coefficients themselves. I sort of agree that these are borderline relevant as well, and I'm not particularly attached to having them as ext links either.


 * BTW, the way in which your calendar converter represents dates BCE is erroneous, or at least misleadingly labelled. Although you label it as the 'Gregorian calendar', you are actually using astronomical year numbering to represent the years (ie, you include a 'year zero', which the Gregorian calendar does not have). Thus, the start-date of the b'ak'tun cycle 13(0).0.0.0.0. 8 Kumk'u 4 Ajaw should correspond with 11 August 3114 BCE in the (proleptic) Gregorian calendar by the GMT correlation; but your converter displays −3113 instead (ie, astronomical not Gregorian year number). I realise yours is not alone in this respect, a lot of the others which like yours appear to be based on the Fourmilab one do this.--cjllw ʘ TALK 05:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the best way to present new material for the page itself, not just external links. I have been researching different perspectives on this from the anthropology/archaeology world as well as the new age speculation and would like to share a summary of what I've found (details on third party studies). Would this best be done by just adding material that fits with wikipedia policy and then seeing how other editors react or should I run it by someone first? I've been hesitant to make such contributions based on the reactions I've gotten from folks here, but from what you are saying that would actually be more welcome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.149.153.119 (talk • contribs).


 * As long as you try to make sure that your contributions are sourced and represent the scholarly consensus in a balanced way, describing the anthropological/archaeological consensus as such and the New Age speculations as such, your contributios are more than welcome. However you must be aware that other editors can change, challenge and edit whatever you choose to add - which is why it is a good idea to provide a sound basis for the inclusion of your material by referring to well established and credible sources.·Maunus· · ƛ · 12:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Maunus, as long as it's cited, presented for what it is, and otherwise in tune with WP:FRINGE and other related guidelines, then no objection to inclusion or mention of more speculative interpretations on the calendar&mdash; providing it's notable enough and is not disproportionate to the more standard desc. I tend to think that it might be better in the long run to have a separate article to deal with alternative Maya calendar / 2012 speculations, rather than take up too much space on the Maya calendar article itself. Unfortunately, there is probably a sufficient number of these popular speculations in play to warrant attention in its own right. Open to suggestions as to what the title of that alternative article should be.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Xelha

 * My understanding was that Xelha was created as a national park, but that the concession is privately run, much like the concessions at the Grand Canyon and Yosemite. Do you have information about Xelha that contradicts this? --Bejnar 18:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you consider these two sentences superfluous? --Bejnar 18:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Most of the extant ruins are located on the inland side of the highway, although one island in the lagoon of the water park has remnants of a building. One temple, ten feet from the highway, contains a painted wall mural of the god Tlaloc."


 * Hi Bejnar. If it were a National Park, I would expect it to have been gazetted as such, but I can't find any mention of it at the CONANP site, or see its decree as one of the areas naturales protegidas listed at CONANP's Sistema de Informacion Geografica ]. Mexican govt websites are usually pretty comprehensive, so its apparent omission indicates to me that it is not a NP, or at least is not one now.


 * As for that sentence, I was planning to redescribe the site's layout, so it's not that I have a problem with the sentence, per se. Although, I think it most unlikely that the mural is a depiction of Tlaloc, who is a central Mexican not Maya deity- the sentence probably is intended to mean Chaak, but I was going to wait until I'd found a specific description in one of the archaeological papers before restoring/updating. Regards, (also posted at ur talkpg) --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

CfD
Hello, I saw that you were closing, and wanted to ensure that you would be aware that the CfD is getting compromised by extensive posting to various forums, all but two by one user, and some of them far less appropriate than others. Aside from the violations of AGF and CIV in the posts there and on the CfD, the same user has solicited votes from users on one side of this and the previous discussion in direct contradiction to the guideline on canvassing. I hope that this notification is in order, as I'm extremely unsure as to how to proceed from here.  Tewfik Talk 00:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I will bear the situation in mind, should I end up reviewing those particular ones you are concerned with for closure. At the moment, I have no opinion either way, not having looked into the background as yet.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Article with no references
Good morning. A few months back I had an article deleted for lack of references, and I just ran across a similar article which also has no references, and should be deleted according to WP:CSD A7 (also WP:CORP and WP:WEB).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xuqa —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marquinho (talk • contribs).


 * Hi Marquinho. It seems that another admin has concurred that the Xuqa article meets CSD criteria, and it has been deleted now in any case. I imagine that you've alerted me since I had a while ago now speedy deleted the Yuniti article you'd created, on similar grounds. Now that it's recreated, someone else has nominated that for deletion consideration. It will need to undergo the usual review, let's leave it up to that process to determine the outcome. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

would you please take a look...
Hi CJLL! Would you please take a look at this edit and let me know if it's OK? Thanks! --Ling.Nut 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Gidday Ling.Nut! I'd say one of your best edits to date, even drawn from some pretty stiff competition.... I was gonna slap an tag on it, but couldn't work out the markup, and I s'pose unlike wikipedia these unis actually encourage it ;-) Congratulations, assuredly well-deserved. I'll keep an eye out for the inevitable forthcoming contribs from User:Dr. Ling.Nut, a suspected sockpuppet of the mysterious editor who's always on a break but whose contribs continue to mount nonetheless...spooky! All the best, and cheers --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "...the mysterious editor who's always on a break but whose contribs continue to mount nonetheless"

END OF TALK ARCHIVE PAGE